Current Concepts in Leadership - Assignment Example

Current Concepts in Leadership What is Leadership The simplest definition I can give of leadership is a quality that a person has that makes him someone other people want to follow. A leader therefore has followers who are motivated to do what the leader asks of them, whether what is asked is good or bad. This is why human history is full of good or bad leaders. Good leaders like George Washington, Winston Churchill, or Mahatma Gandhi accomplished great things, while bad leadersthere are too many of them who did actions so bad that I do not feel their names should even be mentioned. The mystery is how leaders whether good or bad can get others to follow them, in many cases even die and sacrifice what they hold most dear - their lives - in order not to let the leader down. Leadership therefore is the sum total of several personal qualities that a leader has, and it is the almost perfect combination of these qualities that spell "Leadership". Gardner (1989) listed down the following qualities of almost every leader: physical vitality and stamina, intelligence and action-oriented judgment, eagerness to accept responsibility, task competence, understanding of followers and their needs, skill in dealing with people, need for achievement, capacity to motivate people, courage and resolution, trustworthiness, decisiveness, self-confidence, assertiveness, and adaptability or flexibility. Think of every leader through history and most of them possess these qualities in spades. Leadership and Management Leadership and management are often confused because they have similarities but, in reality, mean two different things. The most basic similarity is that both leaders and managers have most of the qualities listed above. Nevertheless, not all leaders are managers, and neither are all managers, leaders. There are difference in a few key areas, such as the way they get others to do things (leaders inspire people on the basis of what they are (their personality and charisma), while managers get others to do things based on their position of authority), and the way they do things (managers are more systematic and logical, follow rules, and work best within organizations, while leaders are able to operate in situations of uncertainty and work best in the midst of chaos). In the traditional definitions of management, leadership is seen as just one aspect of management, the others being planning, organizing, and controlling or directing. So while the leader is followed willingly, at times even blindly, managers rule over their subordinates within the organization. Most companies are founded by leaders but it is managers who make them grow, although in many cases, such as the Marriott or Microsoft or Apple Computers, the leaders are able to work effectively as managers or they hire good managers to run the company and to put order into it. The best combination, of course, is having a manager who is also a leader, or being a leader with managerial qualities. Bennis (1998) best summed up the difference between leadership and management when he said that "managers are people who do things right, while leaders are people who do the right thing." Being a leader-manager is therefore a skill worth developing. Leadership Theories and Examples The human race has been grappling with the issue of leadership since time immemorial: elections, conquest, great battles, and the rise and fall of civilizations have been all determined by the presence, absence, or disappearance of leadership. This explains why leadership theories have multiplied like mushrooms over the last several years, especially with the growth of business corporations. We are so obsessed with what leadership can accomplish (power, wealth, success, and everything else that go with these) that we search for its secrets and its sources so we can either recognize or develop it in ourselves. Among these theories, we can give five that can be better understood with examples in a management setting. These theories have several similarities, and we can group them according to the manner and conditions in which leadership is exercised: charismatic, situational, behavioral, transactional, or transformational. Charismatic leadership is based on the qualities of the leader and the ability to get others to generate in followers a desire to do what the leader wants. The problem is that not all managers have charisma, for various reasons such as personality, manner of speech, appearance, or lack of skills (Wright 1996: 194-196). Many companies, for example, promote good engineers or employees to management positions where they reach a level of incompetence that leads to failure. However, other companies promote workers with charisma to lead a team working on a difficult project, or to lead a group that is difficult to manage such as one where all team members find it difficult to work with one another. Charisma works both ways, so if a charismatic employee decides to bring down the company, s/he can do it quite easily. Situational or contingency leadership argues that leaders are made, in contrast with charismatic leadership which states that leaders are born. Rather than personal qualities, it is situations of crisis or challenge that brings out leadership qualities in people. Situational leaders depend on several factors such as the relationship with their followers, how they use power, and how tasks are structured (Fiedler, 1967). Leaders do what is best based on the situation, adopting different styles - charismatic, dictatorial, kind and understanding - as the case may be. In the work place, I sometimes have to be strict when our customers would get affected, but less so when it is only we employees who are inconvenienced. For example, when a cleaner does a poor job in one of the rooms for guests, I become more demanding as when he does the same in the employee's wash room. Another example is that I am stricter with younger employees and more understanding with the older ones, but in both cases I get them to do what I ask. Behavioral leadership theory, like the situational theory, also states that leaders are made, learning to change their behavior by observing what great leaders do and following their example. This theory states that there are many leadership styles, and the manager adjusts his/her behavior as to whether s/he is managing tasks or people, directing, or seeking after greater participation (Blake and Mouton, 1964). I am usually more demanding when I want to get things (tasks) done, such as getting a room ready for an event, while at the same time exercising greater consideration in my dealings with my people. And when I want to generate ideas and suggestions for a themed party for over a hundred guests, for example, I make sure to encourage my people to speak their mind and not be afraid to get their ideas shot down, or for them to respect ideas of others. Leaders learn to adjust (Hersey and Blanchard, 1977). Transactional leadership looks at management and leadership as rules-based and following a system of reward and punishment. This theory focuses on the role of supervision, organization, and group performance, and several leaders follow this because it is perhaps easier to be consistent (Bass 1990). One example where it can best be applied is in discipline, as when I need to tell someone that he didn't do a good job, or in praising someone that she did well. In both cases, I need to be clear why the job was done well or not, and what they would expect: a demerit, a disciplinary memo, or a bonus and a raise. Transformational leadership focus on the fact that leaders and followers are human beings with their own needs and wants; so transformational leaders motivate and inspire others based on emotional and mental connections and inspiring goals. These leaders focus on over-all performance of the team, but demands that each member fulfills his/her potential. Transformational leadership combines other leadership styles, which means that when applied to my work situation, I should be able to switch on my charisma, refer to a higher goal such as keeping customers happy or helping employees be the best that they can be (Wright 1996: 213). My Connective Leadership Style What would be most appropriate for me given my position at the Marriott is a connective leadership style which combines the five leadership theories and styles just mentioned: charismatic, situational, behavioral, transactional, and transformational. Such a leadership style is appropriate, because my work demands that I bring together different and at times conflicting groups within an interdependent environment (Lipman-Blumen, 2000) such as a hotel. The connective leadership style includes three sets of achieving styles: Direct, Instrumental, and Relational. The Direct Style Set is for those who like to do things for their own, and there are many occasions when I have to do so, without relying on others. This applies to personal tasks assigned to me, such as writing reports, and under this set are three sub-styles that likewise apply: I love the feeling of accomplishment from mastering a task, I am very competitive, and I use power to take charge and coordinate everyone under me. Sometimes, I like to express my individualism and uniqueness, and respect the same in the others. This leadership style suits those occasions. The Relational Style applies when I have to work with groups or to help others work on their goals. I often do this when I mentor new employees assigned to me, for example when I help in orienting them to how the Marriott reservation system works, or when I have to work with a team, for example during peak season when all of us have to do the job of everyone else because we're just so busy. This demands a high degree of flexibility on my part. The third set, Instrumental, is a set of behaviors designed to get things done at all cost, but without stepping on too many toes. This style set show the need for using one's personal strengths to attract supporters, create social networks and work through them, and entrust various parts of my vision to those with whom I work. At times, I see myself and my co-workers as screws in a machinery of service that would hum smoothly only if everyone is in their proper places and doing their work well. We don't mind, because if the Marriott benefits, we also benefit in terms of job fulfillment and, more importantly, financially. Which of these three styles is better, and are these three mutually exclusive, which means that I can practice only one Perhaps yes, one style set at a time, but it does not mean one cannot practice the other styles at some other times. This model of connective leadership shows the range of behavioral adjustments that I, or any other person who wants to be a leader, can do the same. In this era of connections and social networks, this leadership style may be the one that works best for me because it would give me the flexibility to try out nine different styles and behaviors depending on the circumstances, the people I am dealing with, and the expectations of management. There is no single style that works all the time, so having a menu of styles to choose from would certainly help. Of course, given my personality and experience, I am more attuned to a direct leadership style. I have learned to be independent, to do the best in what I can, and to be very competitive. However, as I have grown on the job and received more tasks and responsibilities, I needed to learn the relational style. Applying the same direct style I have always practiced, I set out to be the best supervisor I could be, while learning how to want the same in those I work with. Relying on others has always been difficult, but I now realize that I cannot do everything so I have to help others grow to their tasks. That way, I can end up doing much more, and all of us benefit. I find it most difficult to master instrumental leadership because I see it as a way of using others. I am optimistic, however, that I will learn over time how to do it in a good way without abusing the trust that others have in me. An Example at Work When I was new on the job at the Marriott, I was a direct leader: I minded my business and was only working to save my skin. I cajoled, used my persuasive powers of charisma and personality, and oftentimes threats and fear to get my way. However, I have learned that this does not work all the time, or that I created bad feelings in others because I was too pushy with my leadership style. It reached a point when one of the guys under me broke down from pressure, and I felt bad about it. I always assumed that others could work as hard as I did, but it was only then I realized that yes, they did, but each one has a different way of giving their one hundred percent on the job. Some worked with levers of motivation that were based on fear, while others wanted to feel good that they are doing something more than just earning a living. Others also learned quickly while others did not, and a few others took time to warm up while others would always hit the ground running. Thinking about it, I realized that I had to adjust my leadership styles depending on who I worked with. I gave easy assignments to those who start the day slowly, adding tasks only after a few hours when I noticed that they were perking up. I learned to give complicated tasks to those who were up and about first thing in the morning, because I knew they were up to it. All these demanded a lot of thinking and what I would call heart, because at the Marriott, we would get crisis situations every hour - a guest who was locked out of her room, or a young kid getting trapped in the bathroom, or a walk-in guest who looked suspicious - that put us on our toes the whole day, especially after 9/11 when security at all our properties were tightened. What inspired me was reading the book written by our CEO, Bill Marriott (2001) where he described how he took care of associates, as Marriott employees are called. It showed that this was a company that cared, and I had to care for those under me as much as he, the CEO, did. This helped me to also apply the principles that I learned from him: taking a hands-on approach to leadership, walking around and interacting with everyone, and making sure they know that I care about what they do. My eyes were opened, and with it my mind began aiming higher at personal goals of leadership. I learned to listen well, be patient, and be open to what others said. I also made sure that everyone had the tools they needed to work. If someone came to me with a problem - a co-associate or customer - I made sure I worked on it as fast as I could. Whereas before, I was impatient and ineffective, worked too fast and left others discouraged, after all these years I have learned to pull the others up, helping them learn the same things I learned. This way, I realized that by learning how to lead and take care of each other, we were giving our customers good service. They came back, and this was good for the company, for us, and for our families. Works Cited Bass, Bernard M. Bass and Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research and Managerial Applications. New York: Free Press, 1990. Bennis, Warren. On Becoming a Leader. London: Arrow, 1998. Blake, Robert R. and Jane S. Mouton. The Managerial Grid. Houston: Gulf, 1964. Fiedler, Fred E. A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Gardner, John. On Leadership. New York: Free Press, 1989. Hersey, Paul and Kenneth H. Blanchard. The Management of Organizational Behaviour (3rd Ed.). Upper Saddle River N. J.: Prentice Hall, 1977. Lipman-Blumen, Jean. Connective Leadership: Managing in a Changing World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Marriott, J.W. The Spirit to Serve Marriott's Way. New York: HarperCollins, 2001. Wright, Peter (1996) Managerial Leadership. London: Routledge, 1996. Read More